{"id":229984,"date":"1971-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971"},"modified":"2018-12-20T17:34:36","modified_gmt":"2018-12-20T12:04:36","slug":"a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971","title":{"rendered":"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2303, \t\t 1971 SCR (2) 430<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA. PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/01\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nSHAH, J.C.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2303\t\t  1971 SCR  (2) 430\n 1971 SCC  (1)\t38\n\n\nACT:\nAdmission   to\tMedical\t Colleges-Allegation  of   malafides\nagainst\t  Selection  Committee-Proof  of Interview   marks\nGovernment  specifies heads of distribution of marks but  no\nmarks allotted to each head Presumption that marks should be\ndistributed  equally-Violation of presumption  by  Selection\nCommittee-Elect on selections made.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n The petitioner, who was an unsuccessful applicant for a seat\n in  one  of  the medical colleges  in\tthe  respondent-State\n challenged  the selections made by a writ petition  in\t this\n Court.\t   This\t Court\tcame  to  the  conclusion  that\t  the\n selections made were invalid, but did not strike them\tdown,\n and  instead,\tdirected the State to constitute  a  separate\n expert\t Committee  for\t making selections  to\tthe  unfilled\n seats.\t The Court further directed that the Committee should\n interview only the candidates shown in the waiting list  and\n those\twho  moved  unsuccessfully the High  Court  and\t this\n Court.\t This Court observed that the 75 marks allocated  for\n interview should be divided equally among the five different\n beads with respect to which the marks should be given at the\n interview.\n In  pursuance\tof  the direction  the\tState  constituted  a\n Selection  Committee.\t The Committee called  for  interview\n several   other  candidates  besides  those  asked   to   be\n interviewed  by this Court, though the\t Committee  refrained\n from interviewing such additional candidates.\tThe Selection\n Committee also distributed the 75 interview marks, among the\n five heads not equally but according to its own  discretion.\n Candidates were selected for all the unfilled seats but  the\n petitioner was not selected.  He challenged the selection on\n the  grounds that : (1) the Selection Committee showed\t open\n hostility to him at the interview, (2) the violation of  the\n directions  of\t this Court showed malafides, and  (3)\tthose\n illegalities vitiated the selection made.\n HELD  :  (1) The Selection Committee denied  that  they  had\n exhibited any hostility towards the petitioner.  The  charge\n of  malafides\thas to be established by  the  petitioner  by\n satisfactory  evidence,  and the fact\tthat  the  petitioner\n could\tnot  get  any  outside\tevidence  to  establish\t what\n happened at the interview cannot shift the burden that is on\n him. [451 F-H]\n (2)  The  Selection  Committee explained  that\t they  called\n additional  candidates\t for interview because they  did  not\n understand the scope of the judgment of this Court, and that\n they  distributed  the 75 marks in their  dicretion  because\n there was no specific direction in the operative portion  of\n the  judgment\tof  this Court to  distribute  them  equally.\n Though the explanation was not satisfactory, it could not be\n said  that the Committee had acted mala fide. [452 B-C;  453\n E-F]\n (3)  The  interview  rules  were  made\t by  Government\t  and\n Government  alone could have distributed the  marks  amongst\n the  various heads.  In the absence of such a\tdistribution'\n it should be deemed that each one of the heads carried equal\n marks.\t  Therefore, the procedure adopted by  the  Committee\n was illegal and contrary to the directions of this Court and\n was  likely  to have affected the result of  the  interview.\n [453 F-G]\n 450\n Moreover,  the\t Moreover  the Committee even  on  the\tbasis\n adopted by it, had proceeded on wholly wrong premises\twhile\n granting  marks to the petitioner under the  head  'National\n Cadet Corps activities'. [455 F-G]\n Therefore, the selections made could not be sustained.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTiON : Writ Petition No. 623 of 1970.
\n Petition  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution  of  India  for
\n enforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
 K.   K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner.
\n S.   Govind Swaminathan, Advocate-General, Tamil Nadu, S.
\n Mohan and A. V. Rangam, for respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
\n The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n Hegde,\t J. This is an unfortunate case.  The  petitioner,  a
\n bright\t young\tstudent\t is approaching this  Court  for  the
\n second\t time to seek justice.\tHe, had a brilliant  academic
\n career.   He secured high marks in all the  examinations  in
\n which\the appeared.  In the Pre-University  Examination,  he
\n secured  First\t class\twith  Grade D  plus  in\t Physics  and
\n Chemistry  and\t A  plus in Biology.  He  stood\t 4th  in  his
\n college.   Grade D plus represents 85 to 99 per  cent\tmarks
\n and  A\t plus  65  to 75 per  cent  marks.   He\t applied  for
\n admission  for a seat in one of the medical colleges in  the
\n State\tof Tamil Nadu.\tHe was called for interview  but  was
\n not selected as he is said to have secured low marks in  the
\n interview.   He challenged before this Court the  selections
\n made  on various grounds in Writ Petition No. 285  of\t1970.
\n That  petition\t was heard along with  another\tpetition  and
\n those petitions were allowed on September 23, 1970.  In that
\n petition the petitioner had alleged that the selections made
\n were illegal for various reasons.  He had also alleged\t that
\n the  selections  were manipulated by the  Government.\t This
\n Court\tcame to the conclusion that the allegations  of\t mala
\n fide  had not been established but yet selections were\t held
\n to  be invalid for the reasons mentioned in our order\tdated
\n 23rd September, 1970.\tDespite coming to the conclusion that
\n the selections made were invalid, we did not strike down the
\n selections in view of the fact that the selected  candidates
\n had  not been made parties to those petitions.\t We  directed
\n the State of Tamil Nadu to immediately constitute a separate
\n expert committee consisting of eminent medical practitioners
\n (after\t excluding  all\t those who were the  members  of  the
\n previous committee) for making selections to the 24 unfilled
\n seats.\t We further ordered :\n<\/p>\n
 “The  selection  shall\t be made  on  statewise\t basis.\t  The
\n committee shall interview only the candidates who are\tshown
\n in  the waiting list, the persons who\tunsuccessfully\tmoved
\n the High Court of Madras and the two
\n 451<\/span>
\n petitioners  before this Court.  They shall  allot  separate
\n marks\tunder  the five he-ads mentioned in  the  rule.\t  The
\n committee  shall take into consideration only\tmatters\t laid
\n down  in the rule exclude from consideration all  irrelevant
\n matters  and thereafter prepare a gradation list to fill  up
\n the 24 seats mentioned earlier.”\n<\/p>\n
 In pursuance of the above direction, the State of Tamil Nadu
\n constituted   a  selection  committee\tand   the   selection
\n committee  has selected 24 students for being admitted\t into
\n one  or the other medical colleges run by the Government  of
\n Tamil\tNadu  but  the\tpetitioner  has\t not  been  selected.
\n Thereafter  the  petitioner  has  come\t up  with  this\t writ
\n petition  challenging the validity of the  selections\tmade.
\n The  main  contention taken by him in his writ\t petition  is
\n that  in  view\t of the widespread  publicity  given  to  our
\n previous judgment by the newspapers and the radio, there had
\n been a widespread discontent and criticism in regard to  the
\n prevailing system of interviews.  That widespread  publicity
\n affected  very much the prestige of the State Government  of
\n Tamil\tNadu and therefore the Government of Tamil  Nadu  was
\n particular to see that the petitioner was not selected.   He
\n sought\t to  establish this plea primarily on  the  basis  of
\n three circumstances namely (1) that during the interview the
\n members  of  the selection committee showed  open  hostility
\n towards  him; (2) that despite the order of this Court,  the
\n selection committee called for interview several persons  in
\n addition  to those directed to be interviewed by this\tCourt
\n and  it  is only after he moved this Court  to\t take  action
\n against  the  committee for disobeying the  orders  of\t this
\n Court,\t  the  committee  refrained  from  interviewing\t  the
\n candidates  other than those directed to be  interviewed  by
\n this Court and (3) the selection committee has\t deliberately
\n contravened the directions of this Court.
\n The  members of the selection committee have denied the  al-
\n legation  that they had exhibited any hostility towards  the
\n petitioner during the interview.  On the question as to what
\n happened  during the interview, we have only the version  of
\n the  petitioner  on the one side and of the members  of  the
\n committee on the other.  On the basis of the material before
\n us  it\t cannot\t be said that the  allegations\tmade  by  the
\n petitioner  are established.  The charge of mala fide\tis  a
\n serious  charge  and  the  same has  to  be  established  by
\n satisfactory evidence.\t The fact that the petitioner  could
\n not  get any outside evidence to establish what happened  at
\n the time of the interview cannot shift the burden that is on
\n him to prove his allegations.\n<\/p>\n
 It is true that at one stage, the selection committee called
\n for  interview several candidates other than those asked  to
\n be  interviewed  by  this Court.  When\t those\tpersons\t were
\n called\t for interview, the petitioner approached this\tCourt
\n to restrain the selection
\n 452<\/span>
\n committee  from  interviewing\tthose  persons.\t  This\tCourt
\n declined  to go into that matter at that stage.   Thereafter
\n the  State of Tamil Nadu moved this Court for\tclarification
\n of  our order.\t We rejected that application as in our\t view
\n the order did not require any clarification.  Thereafter the
\n selection   committee\t refrained  from   interviewing\t  the
\n candidates  whom it had called for interview in addition  to
\n those\twhom  this  Court asked the  selection\tcommittee  to
\n inter-view.  The members of the selection committee say that
\n they  did not clearly understand the scope of\tour  judgment
\n and  it is in those circumstances they called for  interview
\n some  candidates  whom they ultimately\t did  not  interview.
\n Though\t this explanation is not very satisfactory  but\t from
\n that  circumstance alone, we cannot come to  the  conclusion
\n that  the  selection committee had any ulterior  purpose  in
\n calling a large number of candidates for interview.
\n So  far  as  the illegalities said to\thave  been  committed
\n during the interview are concerned, we shall separately deal
\n with  them.  But those illegalities do not establish  either
\n by   themselves   or  even  when   considered\t along\t with
\n circumstances mentioned above the plea of mala fide.
\n This  takes  us  to the illegalities alleged  to  have\t been
\n committed  by the selection committee.\t As mentioned in  our
\n earlier  judgment, the selection committee was\t directed  to
\n interview the candidates under five different heads viz.-
\n 1 .  Sports or National Cadet Corps activities;\n<\/p>\n
 2.   Extra Curricular special services;\n<\/p>\n
 3.   General Physical condition and endurance;\n<\/p>\n
 4.   General ability; and\n<\/p>\n
 5.   Aptitude.\n<\/p>\n
 The  Government allocated 75 marks for interview but it  did
\n not prescribe separate marks for the separate heads.  In the
\n previous writ petition, it was contended that the  interview
\n was  invalid  inasmuch as the Government did  not  prescribe
\n separate  marks  for  separate\t heads.\t  We  rejected\t that
\n contention with these observations :\n<\/p>\n
 “It  is true that the rule did not prescribe separate\tmarks
\n for separate heads.  But that in our opinion did not  permit
\n the selection committee to allot marks as it pleased.\t Each
\n one  of  the tests prescribed had its\town  importance.   As
\n observed at foot-note 20 at p. 485 of American Jurisprudence
\n Vol.  15  that\t the interviewers  need\t not  record  precise
\n questions and answers when oral test(; are used to  appraise
\n personality  traits;  it  is sufficient  if  the  examiner’s
\n findings are recorded on the appraisal
\n 453<\/span>
\n sheet according to the personal qualifications itemised  for
\n measure.   A  contention similar to those  advanced  by  the
\n petitioners came up for consideration before the Mysore High
\n Court\tin D. G. Viswanaih v. Chief Secretary of  Mysore  and
\n Ors.(1). There the Court observed thus
\n “it  is true that Annexure IV does not specifically  mention
\n the   marks   allotted\t for  each  head.   But\t  from\t that
\n circumstance  it  cannot  be held that\t the  Government  had
\n conferred  an\tunguided  power on the\tCommittees.   In  the
\n absence  of specific allocation of marks for each  head,  it
\n must be presumed that the Government considered that each of
\n the  heads  mentioned\tin  Annexure IV\t as  being  equal  in
\n importance  to any other.  In other words we have  to\tinfer
\n that  the intention of the Government was that each  one  of
\n those heads should carry 1\/5th of the ‘Interview marks’.”
\n It is clear from our judgment that we quoted the decision in
\n Viswanath’s  case (supra) with approval.  But yet  when  the
\n impugned  selections  were  made,  the\t selection  committee
\n allotted  marks to the various heads according to their  own
\n discretion.   It was admitted before us at the hearing\t that
\n the  selection committee distributed the 75 interview\tmarks
\n among\tthe five heads mentioned above according to  its  own
\n discretion.  For some heads, 1 0 marks were allotted and for
\n others\t 25  marks.  The procedure adopted by  the  selection
\n committee  clearly contravened our judgment in\t the  earlier
\n writ  petition.  There is no substance in the plea  advanced
\n on  behalf of the selection committee that in the  operative
\n portion  of  our  order, we did  not  direct  the  selection
\n committee  that each one of the heads should carry 1\/5th  of
\n the “interview” marks.\t The selection committee was not  the
\n rule making authority.\t The interview rules were made by the
\n Government.  The Government alone could have distributed the
\n marks\tamongst the various heads.  In the absence of such  a
\n distribution, as mentioned by us in our earlier judgment, it
\n should be deemed that each one of those heads carried\tequal
\n marks.\t There can be no doubt that the procedure adopted  by
\n the  selection\t committee  is likely to  have\taffected  the
\n result of the interview.\n<\/p>\n
 As   seen  earlier,  one  of  the  heads  under  which\t  the
\n interviewers were asked to interview is “Snorts or  National
\n Cadet\tCorps  activities”.  It is not\tSports\tand  National
\n Cadet Corps activities.  The requirement is either snorts or
\n National Cadet Corps activities.  Admittedly the  petitioner
\n produced a “A” certificate to show that he had the  National
\n Cadet Corps training.\tBut yet he was given
\n (1) A.I.R. 1964. Mys. 132.\n<\/p>\n
 454<\/span><\/p>\n
 only  five marks out of the 10 marks allotted for that\t head
\n by  the selection committee.  The petitioner’s complaint  is
\n that  the selection committee had no right to cut  down  the
\n marks\tto  which  he was entitled to.\tWe  called  upon  the
\n selection committee to disclose the basis on which the marks
\n were given for National Cadet Corps activities.  In response
\n to  that direction, the Chairman of the Selection  Committee
\n filed an affidavit on December 28, 1970.  In paragraph 4  of
\n his affidavit he deposed thus :\n<\/p>\n
 “Likewise  in\tthe  National Cadet  Corps  also,  there  are
\n various  grades and the candidate may have joined in  N.C.C.
\n in  school or college for one year or 2 years or more;\t (ii)
\n passed\t examinations and attained certificates and  stripes.
\n The  grades  arc certificate-A-Part 1, lowest in  rank\t then
\n Part  11,  Certificate B, Certificate C being\tthe  highest.
\n Some candidates may in addition have attained promotions  as
\n Lance\tCorporal,  Sergeant  or Under  Officer.\t  Marks\t were
\n allotted  according  to  the  grades  as  shown  by  various
\n certificates.”\n<\/p>\n
 In  the reply affidavit filed by one Ramanathan, a  relation
\n of  the  petitioner  (the petitioner is  a  minor),  it  was
\n averred as follows (in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the  affidavit)
\n :\n<\/p>\n
 “I state the averments in para 4 of the supplemental counter
\n affidavit are misleading and do not attempt to place  before
\n this  Honourable  Court  the entire facts.   The  N.C.C.  is
\n divided  into\ttwo Divisions, namely,\tJunior\tDivision  and
\n Senior\t Division.  The Junior Division N.C.C.\tis  conducted
\n only  in the High Schools, while the Senior Division  N.C.C.
\n only in the colleges.\tThe ‘A’ Certificate is issued to  the
\n Junior\t Division N.C.C. cadets who pass the ‘A’  Certificate
\n Examination,  while the ‘B’ and ‘C’ Certificates are  issued
\n to  the Senior Division N.C.C. Cadets who pass the  ‘B’  and
\n ‘C’  Certificate  Examinations\t respectively  held  in\t  the
\n Colleges  for the Senior Division.  As such, a\t High  School
\n student would be eligible to obtain only an ‘A’  Certificate
\n and not the ‘B’ and ‘C’ Certificates.\n<\/p>\n
 6.   The  students  who appeared for the  selection  to  the
\n Medical course for the year 1970-71 could not have  obtained
\n a  ‘B’ or a ‘C’ Certificate for the reason that  N.C.C.  was
\n discontinued  in the State of Tamil Nadu in all Schools  and
\n Colleges  in  Jan. 1968.  In the Anglo Indian\tSchools,  the
\n school\t year  ends  in December, while in the\trest  of  the
\n schools  the  school year is from June April.\tThe students
\n       studying in the High Schools other than Anglo-
\n       Indian Schools during the year 1967-68
\n 455<\/span>
\n would\t,  therefore, not have obtained even  an  ‘A’  Certi-
\n ficate, as the Certificate is issued after undergoing train-
\n ing  for  a period of one year and then passing,  he  exami-
\n nation.   The\tpetitioner  obtained such  a  certificate  in
\n January, 1968 for the N.C.C. Course of one year in regard to
\n which\the  wrote  his\texamination in\tOctober,  1967.\t  The
\n       students\t studying in the schools  other\t than
\n       the  Anglo-Indian  Schools  would,  therefore,
\n       have  not  been\table to obtain\teven  an  ‘A’
\n       Certificate  for the year 1967-68,  since  the
\n       N.C.C. was discontinued in the middle of their
\n       academic year, N.C.C. was resumed in the State
\n       of  Tamil Nadu only in November 1969;  and  as
\n       such  students  studying in  the\t schools  and
\n       colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu would  not
\n       have  been  Able\t to get the ‘A’\t ‘B’  or  ‘C’
\n       Certificate  in\tthe  Schools  and   ‘Colleges
\n       during the academic year 1968-69 or 1969-70: ‘ The petition
\ner, therefore, sumbits that  none
\n       among  the  students  who  appeared  for\t  the
\n       selection  to the Medical Course for the\t year
\n       1970-71\tcould  have obtained the ‘B’  or  ‘C’
\n       Certificates, the ‘A’ Certificate,  therefore,
\n       was  in effect the highest certificate that  a
\n       candidate  appearing  for  selection  for  the
\n       Medical\tCourse\tfor the\t year  1970-71\tcould
\n       possibly obtain.\t Even this certificate\twould
\n       not  be available to the students passing  out
\n       of  the\tschools other than  the\t Anglo-Indian
\n       Schools\tand who appeared for  this  selection
\n       for the Medical Course 1970-71.\tIt is a\t mat-
\n       ter  of easy verification as to who among  the
\n       24 selected candidates or the 11.4  candidates
\n       eligible for the selection for these 24\tseats
\n       in  fact possessed the N.C.C. ‘A’  Certificate
\n       or even the ‘B’ and ‘C’ certificates.”\n<\/p>\n
 No  reply was made to the allegations quoted above. Nor  was
\n the   learned\tAdvocate  General  of  Tamil  Nadu  able   to
\n controvert those allegations.\tUnder those circumstances  we
\n must hold that selection committee had proceeded on a wholly
\n wrong premises while granting marks under the head “National
\n Cadet Corps activities”.\n<\/p>\n
 For  the reasons mentioned above we hold at  the  selections
\n made are vitiated and as such they cannot be sustained.   We
\n were  informed\t that the 24 students  whose  selections  are
\n impugned  in the present writ petition have  already  joined
\n one or the other medical college in the State of Tamil\t Nadu
\n and  they have been attending classes for over a month.   In
\n view  of the hardship that may be caused to  those  innocent
\n students,  by the order that we, proposed to make, we\tasked
\n the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu on January 4, 1971,\t when
\n the petition came no for hearing to see if he could persuade
\n the Government of Tamil Nadu to admit
\n 456<\/span>
\n the  petitioner in any one of the medical colleges in\tTamil
\n Nadu  and thus avoid the unpleasant consequence.   For\t that
\n purpose we adjourned the petition to the 7th of this  month.
\n When  the  matter  was taken up on that  date,\t the  learned
\n Advocate General informed us that the Government was  unable
\n to accept our suggestion.  That day the hearing of the\t case
\n was  completed.   Bearing in mind the\tserious\t consequences
\n that  our order is likely to have on those 24\tstudents,  we
\n again\t asked\tthe  Advocate-General  to  explain   to\t  the
\n Government  the hardship that is likely to be caused to  the
\n selected  students for no fault of their own and  inform  us
\n the  decision\tof the Government before the  14th  of\tthis
\n month.\t The Government’s reaction was not favourable.\tHence
\n there\tis  no alternative before us but to  allow  the\t writ
\n petition, quash the impugned selections and direct the Stale
\n of  Tamil  Nadu to appoint a fresh selection  committee  for
\n making\t selections  in\t accordance  with  our\torder\tdated
\n September 23, 1970.  The State of Tamil Nadi, shall pay  the
\n costs of the petitioner in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Petition\n allowed\n 457<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2303, 1971 SCR (2) 430 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: A. PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/01\/1971 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SHAH, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-20T12:04:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-20T12:04:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\"},\"wordCount\":2732,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\",\"name\":\"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-20T12:04:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-20T12:04:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971","datePublished":"1971-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-20T12:04:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971"},"wordCount":2732,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971","name":"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-20T12:04:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-periakaruppan-chettiar-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-ors-on-15-january-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229984","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=229984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}